In the vein of the "Ask the gay guy..." threads, I thought there might be some interest in asking the pornographer. I kinda fell into this role backwards (really!). First, some background.

I am a bit of a newcomer to the SDMB posting thang, though I have been a reader for about a year. Along with my longtime pal, confidante, SDMB reg, and now employee, GuanoLad, I am a professional (ie, making a living) pornographer. GuanoLad does the webdesign stuff, and edits the video material, while I am the photographer. We have been at it for a few years now, producing material for a single website, and have recently got into VHS video production.

The business is doing well, so presumably we have found a niche market for our material. While it seems obvious to outsiders that all internet based porn material would make money, that is no longer the case (it was about five years ago). More sites fail than not, tho less people are trying lately, as they realise how hard it is. Finding people to pay for material that appear to be "free" on usenet newsgroups and websites is hard, let alone getting them to pay for quality material.

The material we shoot is of amateur models, very "girl next door" style. No makeup, no high heels, no big hair, no "sexy" police/nurse/accountant costumes (all the models wear their own clothes). The models are shot in a clear, well lit, and "normal" way - no pouting, no "sexy" looks. Just normal gals having a good time. This is not Artistic Nudity. We shoot models by themselves ("solo"), or in girl-girl pairs. We don't shoot boy-girl couplings (yet).

We shoot our amateur "off the street" models with quality camera gear, in a professional way; the genre is not "pictures my boyfriend took of me when we came home drunk from the prom" (there is a big market for this kinda stuff, however it's hard to fake well).

We treat the models with the highest respect, we pay them well (on the day they get photographed, not when the shoot is published, or "when it makes money" (pornographers of dubious reputation often promise this to models, and plenty of models get suckered in by it), and we run a proper business - we're a registered Australian company, we pay tax, every shoot has associated documentation (releases, tax docs), we have an established studio (tho we tend to shoot models in specific locations, not in studios).

I'm saying all this so you get an idea of the kinda people we are. We hold ourselves accountable for what we do, we do it well, and we do it legally, so please don't flame me for being dodgy, untrustworthy, unreliable, a leper, or in need of re-education by way of a Big Stick (all this and more I have been criticised of before).

---------------------------------------

I have spoken to the moderators about this post, and they have okayed it, so long as we promise to keep it clean (presumably as clean as a thread on porn can be). I am very interested in intelligent debate on all porn-production related issues, and I hope that other people are as well.

To that end, the mods ask that I suggest the type of questions that might be relevant:

You guys must have sex with a lot of the models, right?

You're a spammer, you deserve to die, bitch!

Are you a millionaire yet?

Why are all the models oiled, have big hair, fake tits, high heels, anyway?

How do you live with yourself, corrupting the young like that?

Where do you find models?

How much do they get paid?

Does being a dyke affect what you do?

For the geeks among us, what are the stats on your server? What about credit cards - all porn sites are dodgy with them, right?

Please give thoughts, if possible specific to known markets, market segmentation and currents trends in regards to market demand for and/or against ethnic specific marketing, either in terms of actors or in directed marketing.

Also, would you know demand elasticities in regards to pricing and GDP growth?

Here in Australia, there's a lot of talk about being proud of our multi-cultural heritage, etc (and, hell, I am), but the fact is, there are not THAT many non-white Australians around. But I guess it depends on your terms - part Lebonese, Chinese, Aboriginal, etc, people abound, "pure" races, I would say, are less common (well, they seem to be to me - not sure on the actual stats), and less likely to pose nude.

Certainly anecdotal evidence indicates that out of the several hundred models I have photographed, 95% of them would be classified as being "white". 4% would of Asian extraction, the rest would be black or "other". Asian models are a definite fetish for whatever reason.

I very rarely get requests for models of a specific race, so I guess there's a status quo there. I shoot models that come to me looking to be shot, and that happens to be what people want to see.

We don't do any marketing in any kind of ethnic-specific way, except for places where English tends to be the base language (however we're looking at trying to organise billing and advertise in some of the EuroDollar countries, as many people there tend to have specialised credit cards (or no credit cards at all), not the US standard VISA, MC; and that would involve some ethno-specific marketing).

Around 90% of my customers are in the US, presumably that is because it's the most developed and largest English speaking country, especially when it comes to internet connectivity and disposable income. It goes in circles - most of our customers are from there, most people would sign up to a site are from there, most places we advertise are based there.

After the US, the UK, Australia, and then European and Asian countries.

The girls that do girl/girl scenes. Are they usually lez in real life? If not, what motivates them to do it on camera? And if so, are the ones on the tapes couples in real life? Or do you put 2 together and say, "you're working with her today".

Also, how is cleansliness handled? Are the actors trusted to take care of themselves, or is there oversight? I mean, has it ever happened that one woman went down on another and said "Yuck, you stink"?

When you get into man/woman films, will you show condom use like some of the tapes I've seen? If so, why? I hate that! None of my fantasies involve use of a condom! Why are so many pornographers doing that? Aren't standard AIDS test enough?

Lessee... All the GG scenes I have shot to date, none of the participants would call themselves "lesbian". Most would say "bi". Some have never been with another girl before doing in front of a camera, and that makes for excellent material - they get the double thrill from doing it for the first time AND in front of a camera.

The "thrill" factor seems to be the main motivation, and several GG models have told me they'd do it for nothing - they just like the idea of it. We pay them anyway.

We have never shot a GG scene where the models are a couple in real life, and to my knowledge, none of the models have hooked up after a shoot, tho they have been known to go out for a drink socially after (sometimes with the crew). Several have boyfriends.

We shoot models solo first, and then bring them back at a later date for GG material. With regards to selecting partners, from my observations, it seems this is part of the thrill. We have never had a model turn down a suggestion we have made, tho we always offer a "primary", and several "secondary" selections. If they ask, we show them pics of each other beforehand.

Cleanliness? The onus is on them, but we advise them - we have never had a model complain about another model, but we always suggest a shower before we start shooting, with the advice, "make sure you're _very_ clean". We also ask the models to take a shower after (toilet or other) breaks.

With regards to boy-girl shoots, we have not shot any yet, but we have had interest expressed by solo models interested in working with their boyfriends, and we all agree that'd be the better way to do it. We don't plan to have a "resident stud" like a lot of sites do. STD's is the obvious reason, but AIDS tests are the very surface (and not really that much of a risk). Things like genital warts, gonorrhea, herpes, hep c, and so on, are much more realistic risks (and not always testable for, and probably unrealistic financially (and legally?), due to the time it takes for test results to come in, and the cost of them.

We don't want to use condoms (hell, who does?!) in the shoots, I agree with you. But I can see why shoots are produced with them - convenience. To me, it's clear they are missing entirely the point of producing porn (as you imply), but I reckon that's the case for about 90% of mainstream porn (who WANTS to see wimmin with fake tits REALLY?). We'd probably choose people who have unprotected sex regularly, rather than deal with the hassle of getting STD tests and pairing people who don't know each other.

There are masses of legal implications there, so we're not going to act before talking to a lawyer, and workshopping it a lot more. We'd need to get the models to sign something anything they agree to the risks of sex, I guess, which is kinda funny, but I'd hate for a model to sue me for not taking steps to ensure she did not get pregnant or whatever.

Actually I'd love to see you address some or all of the questions you suggested in your OP, but if you're pressed for time I'll pick the one question that has always irked me, concerning porn in general:

Quote:

Why are all the models oiled, have big hair, fake tits, high heels, anyway?

I was careful to point out that we got to great efforts to not shoot people dressed / made up like that, but I can have a bash at the answer.

Seems to me that men these days like to see wimmin like that cos that's what they have been brought up to believe is "sexy". In the 60's and 70's, where porn became more accepted, mainstream, with the help of mags like Hustler, playboy, and later Penthouse, that was the concept the editors and shoot producers had.

It has hung on now because it's easy and formulaic, not because it's good. It's just adequate. Most men seem to be quite satisfied with it (tho that is changing slowly, as is evidenced by GuanoLad's thread on these boards, "What do people want to see in porn?" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=105426). However, when they see the alternatives, they are generally interested.

So, it seems to me that the reason the female models are all dressed the same, behaved the same, and pretty much look the same, is that's cos what they have always* looked like.

This is my opinion, based on working in the biz for a few years. If someone else has a different theory (or wants to take it further - why they came up with THAT specific look, and not something else, or why it has not evolved to follow modern fashion), I'd be keen to hear it.

I guess this could turn into a thread on semantics - what is "glamour" (I started a thread on digital cameras in this biz on some digital photography forums once, and it turned into "what is the definition of "glamour", when does it become "porn", etc.

What is "glamour", but more to the point, _why_ is it considered "glamorous"? This fascinates me. To amuse myself sometimes during a shoot, I ask a model to give the camera a "sexy look". Unfailingly, every model, regardless of age, background, education, will do a very similar thing, and you all know what it is. What every model in every Penthouse / Hustler shoot does at least once. Is someone gonna find a Darwin cite?

Ya know, a few years ago, someone tried to convince me that men liked wimmin with lotsa eye makeup on, cos it made them look freshly beaten. Sounds pretty absurd to me.

Abby

* by always, I mean _recently_, of course, since porn became widespread and mass produced

For stills shoots, some models come up with interesting, weird, whacky good stuff, but most amateur models stand there like a deer in headlights, and need a lot of direction. The genre we shoot for has some specific requirements, and each shoot has similar basic elements, a way of progressing. We always encourage the model to bring her own ideas to a shoot, and once they relax, they often come up with some cool stuff.

The girl-girl video we produce, however, is all done in one shot, covered with two cameras, and no live direction at all.

Just before the shoot starts, we brief the models on the kind of stuff we're after (not mentioning specifics), make sure they are both aware of the other's limits, ask them to be open to the camera when they can, but to do what comes naturally. We also stress that we don't want them to acknowledge the camera.

We give them a 50-minute time limit, but make sure there are no clocks in sight (really destroys the mood if a model looks at her watch!)

We roll tape, and they go for it.

We provide them with a set that is quiet and free from interruptions, and let them play their part. The crew (small, usually only two camera ops) don't say a word, move as little as possible, so they do not distract the models. Recording live sound is of crucial importance. We use highly directional mics to capture every breath (etc), but they still pick up the motor drives in the cameras, crew moving, sheets rustling, clothes moving, and so on.

At the end of the scene, we may go back and do some "pickups" - shots that we were not able to catch in the main scene. These will usually be extreme closeups of a specific action, and are directed verbally (sound from the long shot is dubbed over).

Thanks you, Abby. Posing guys and girls is fine, but I alway want my action shots to at least appear real. I find it very distracting to have a model staring into the camera while he's supposed to be going down.

This is not a question, actually, but I'd like to bring this thread to your attention, wherein you'll find some feedback regarding what many of us would like to find (but mainly don't) in porn. Of course I gather that much of what you're doing involves still shots rather than feature-length movies, but it might still be worth a perusal.

Yes, I am aware of that thread (and ref'd it above). GuanloLad works with me (an employee, in fact!), and the question he has asked regards the direction we take the business in the future.

I personally do not think people really want to see plot - they just want good sex... but GuanoLad is convinced, as are other people on the team, so we are looking in to it.

Finding people who are willing to do porn who can act worth a damn is very hard, and while no one said it was going to be easy, this is a business, and we're here to make money. And chances are, you would not be able to sell enough copies of a tape that features good acting, good plot, AND good sex to enough people to cover expenses, let alone make a profit. It's hard enough to sell ANY porn material out there as it is, even if you stick to the tried and tested methods.

People just won't pay to see it - yet.

It's one of our dreams to make enough money from "gonzo" porn to be able to give this a go, and count it as a learning experience, research, and not expect to make a profit, and in a few years, we may well be able to. GuanoLad is a dab hand at writing, and has come up with some great stories that involve sex and drama.

Once our name in the biz has become more established, we'll (hopefully) attract a following of people who will buy what we make based on the fact that they have liked everything else we have made, and they'd be willing to take a risk, because they trust us. Of course, that goes for any business selling anything.

Hi Abby.
What I've always wondered:
1) How does a director make sure the cast members are all going to be physically compatable, being that such compatability is arguably crucial to the job (especially for guys)?
2) Are the super close-up shots actually those of the people who you see doing it? Always or usually? Rarely or never?
3) How are these super close-up shots successfully taken? It would seem that sticking an 8 mm camera up where the action is would kind of ruin the mood. It's hard to picture zoom alone accounting for all the neccessary angle and lighting aspects, and it's difficult to imagine that spycams have the resolution required...but is all this the case?
4) Why is the use of chintzy instrumental music so ubiquitous? Is it just that it's cheap? That it's in the public domain and free? And if so, why not just play wave or rain sounds?
Thanks,
SuzCQ

How does being a dyke affect my work? Not much, really. Men make up the huge majority of my customers, FYI, so I am not shooting for wimmin (had not considered it, really - I have been a fan of hetro, male orientated porn for ages, so shooting it was a natural progression).

I don't think it makes a big difference, really. There's a lot of talk about how wimmin prefer different visual stimulation to men. I don't pretend to know the answers, but from personal experience, I shoot what I like to see, and that happens to be in line with what other people want to see as well. I have a my own style of shooting, but it's not a "dyke" style, by any means. I am influenced by other shooters, men and wimmin.

"About what percentage of your models are shaved? Peirced? Tattooed? Do you find that models are more or less popular with any of these?"

As I mentioned earlier, I shoot models as they come to me, and plenty of them are shaved. I would say, 50% are shaved entirely, another 30% would be aggressively trimmed ("drag strip" etc). Maybe 5% are untouched in the pubic hair department (hm, which I presume you are referring to!).

I have a long standing theory (tho I am still working on it), that people who are predisposed to do this kinda work tend to be more shaved. It's probably cos that's what the porn models they have seen before are shaved (that horrible 80's thing that still survives to this day). It's a bit of a light-fetish thing (in the realm of "small breasts", or "blonde", not golden shower, or bondage!), but is loosing ground pretty fast. More and more people seem to prefer neatly trimmed pubic hair, or quite long.

While most people who come to me are aggressively shaved, I doubt that 80% of the female population (say, between 18 and 26) are aggressively shaved. I'd love to hear from an gynocologist or even a GP on this, actually (anyone?).

Around 90% of models I have shot are tattooed somewhere, and usually with the cliched and thoroughly ugly butterfly on bum, scorpion on breast, dolphin on tummy kinda deal. Plenty have some kinda Celtic anklet, or tribal design on their lower back. One has a few Dr Suess characters on her tummy (REALLY ugly!). Un-tattooed of-legal-age models are hard to find (need to be 18 here in .au to get a tattoo, technically), and while we don't pay them more (hm, maybe we should?), they do tend to sell better.

But, that may be cos of other things that seem to go hand in hand with not having a tattoo. People who don't have tattoos are less likely to model, are more likely to look "proper" - "not the kinda girl who'd do THAT!", and that DOES sell. Not innocence, necessarily (tho that never hurts, if it is genuine), just a sense of propriety.

I have recently contracted out a job to set up a database for tracking the information of models we interview and shoot (it's all on paper, currently). It's shaping up very well, and means I'll be able to answer questions like "how many people have no tattoos or piercings and are shaved aggressively?". And I suspect there will not be many people who fit into that department at all.

Again, piercings are very common, around 60% have something more than their ears pierced. Navels are very common, lip, eyebrow, labia / clitoral hood less so, but still seen regularly. As for tattoos, a model with no extra piercings exudes a more "nice girl" look, which many people find appealing.

When you add all these together; a model with several piercings and tatts, an all over tan, and completely shaved, and you're looking at a certain type of model. Those models do sell, but are generally not as popular as the opposite: unshaved, no tatts or piercings, subtle tan lines or fair skin.

Well, I shoulda been clearer (I think - not really sure what you mean).

We currently utilise a premise for most girl-girl encounters, not a plot. Models start clothed, and end up naked in both situations, but there's a big difference between premise and plot . A premise might be:

Quote:

A gal is painting her toenails on the sofa, and a friend comes over to visit. they decide to paint eachothers toenails at the same time, feet in eachothers laps. Toe to crotch rubbing ensues, kissing, they strip, etc

or

Quote:

A gal is hanging out the washing, and her friend comes over and bugs her, hands up her shirt, down her pants, kissing neck, etc. Washing gal needs to get work done and does not want to be distracted, other gal tries to distract washing gal as much as possible; sex scene in the garden ensues.

[not actual quotes, sorry]

A plot, of course, is very different. It has tension and conflict, characters need to be established and usually change somehow, and the conflict needs to resolved at the end. Drama.

I am not sure what you mean by physically compatible, to be honest. You mean, the same height? Or that a penis is not too large for a given vagina? or that skin colours complement each other?

Well, I don't shoot hetro sex, so some of that's not an issue for me (we are planning on starting soon, and we plan to shoot people who are partnered in real life). People manage to have sex in real life with little regard for physical compatibility, and while we're not making a documentary, the material we shoot is closer to reality than most of the slick porn out there. I cannot speak for other producers, tho.

We always use the super closeup shots of the same people who are in the long shots, and why anyone would do it is only to save money, tho really it'd not save much at all (and result in a crap product, and be a little mislaeading, see below). It's much more convenient to shoot extreme closups (ECU's) at the end of a shoot, in the "pickups" stage, for many reasons:

lighting is the same as for wide shots

it will be on the same tape for editing convenience

the pose will match the long shot (this takes a while, and is hard enough posing models for closeups when they were in that position 20 minutes ago - much harder to pose two models who have never done that pose together before, on a different day)

the furniture, props, set dressings, clothes will match

just plain convenience

models will match

The last point seems kinda obvious, but in reality a gi-gi (sorry, our slang) has just as many features as someone's face, and anyway, someone's face is usually in on a closeup (especially in girl-girl material).

I know that some dodgy porn producers will shoot a softcore GG scene, and then edit in some more explicit stuff, but for the reasons cited above, it always looks crap, and never makes sense (why is the 18" pink dildo only used in extreme closeups, and never in long shots?). They greatly underrate the intelligence of their viewers. Unfortunately for me, they still make money, tho. )

We shoot on MiniDV not 8mm, FYI, but the cameras are a similar size anyway. The lenses we use can focus from around 8cms (um, 3.1 inches), though we rarely put the camera that close. They would indeed ruin the mood however, so we usually only utilise ECU's in the "pickups" (discussed in more detail earlier on this thread). We try to use the zoom function on the camera as little as possible, as it affects perspective weirdly. When we do use it, we stay away from the in and out extremes.

Closeups in video are over-rated IMO, and we are using less and less of them lately. A film is about the people's interaction, and an ECU of one percent of the big picture rarely communicates that at any level (tho they are useful in small doses).

Occasionally, re-lighting for ECU pickup shouts is required, so the camera does not cast a shadow over the action. Hard to do well, to match the shadows to the big picture. Cinematographers and gaffers spend years perfecting it, and we're no where near close.

Music, huh? Jezze, that's a tough one. We commissioned a musician for music recently, and while he's giving us what we asked for, it's not even close to want we want, unfortunately (bah! Typical artist! ). This is REALLY HARD. Of course, we want to get clear of the typical sax and wah-wah pedal, but...

We had a vision for contemporary drums n bass... but it's not working out how we hoped. I rilly like your idea of rain or wave sounds, tho. Thanks.

We go to a helluva lot of trouble to record live sound (customers demand it), and we tend to do a lot better than most people, and it's hard knowing when to fade the music up, or when to not have it at all. It's a fine art, I tells ya.

Hi abby, I actually have several questions for you since it's not often I get to ask a real, live pornographer questions.

1. I was wondering about the selection process that the models go through. You mentioned earlier that you pretty much shoot the models who come to you, but I was wondering whether there is a certain "look" or "type" (or even personality trait) that you either actively search out or try to avoid. If so, why?

A plot, of course, is very different. It has tension and conflict, characters need to be established and usually change somehow, and the conflict needs to resolved at the end. Drama.

The sex wouldn't have to be ancillary to that. In fact, sex itself is a lot like that!

Quote:

A gal is painting her toenails on the sofa, and a friend comes over to visit. they decide to paint eachothers toenails at the same time, feet in eachothers laps. Toe to crotch rubbing ensues

Why? Is one of them using this as an opportunity to seduce the other? Has she tried it before unsuccessfully? How did the would-be seduction-victim react? Feel about it? Can we maybe roll back to last week when she tried it for the first time, unsuccessfully, show that part? After she gets over the startlement and shock, does the other gal find herself kind of wondering? Did she accept an invite to come over today with an internal resolution not to let such possibilities become actualities? When we see their respective facial expressions when the first gal first starts doing things with her toe other than letting them get painted, do we see daring and mischief on the face of the instigator? Ambivalence and uncertainty on the face of the other, perhaps a struggle to find the best way to extract herself from the situation, followed by an erotic flush and a losing track of passing time as the toe keeps rubbing?
[/quote]

Quote:

, kissing,

Eventually, yeah. Interrupted by conversation. Maybe conversation results in girl #2 questioning the motives of girl #1 who doesn't seem to get it that she isn't like that, and this appears to break the mood, only to have something distract her, and when her attention swings back, girl #1 gives her another kiss, and some time between the 3rd and 4th kiss girl #2 leans against girl #1? Then after awhile

Quote:

they strip

See, you've got a plot, you just need to fill it out more! Who strips what off whom? Attitudes, reactions, facial expressions, speed, mood?

It has been my observation that in still shots of women orally copulating men, the woman often (usually?) manages to gaze directly into the camera, while the man does not. This gives the impression that the man is really involved in the moment, while the woman is simply doing a job, no pun intended. For all I know, this might well be the case and not simply an impression.

Hey Abby,
Thanks for these great answers! In responding to my question about physical compatability, you asked what I meant...and I could've been clearer;-( Will attempt here:
What I've often observed in girl-on-guy action is that in as much as penetration is shown, erection--if not open ejaculation--is usually a standard part of the scene. It seems that if a male cast member is really not into his female counterpart...well...that he can't get into her would seem the end of it. If the turned-off cast member is female, it's physically possible to fake it, I suppose, but quite possibly more trouble than its worth for her, other cast and the directors.
So I was wondering whether prospective cast members all know and like each other beforehand, or if they don't, if they can "vet" one another ahead of time and what such a process would be.

I am a consumer of porn, and I believe society's double standard -- shun it in public, then hypocritically enjoy it in private -- is pretty disgusting. However, I don't deny it exists, and hence my question: What do you tell non-industry people you do for a living? Your family, friends, casual acquaintances, people you meet at parties, etc.? And if you're up-front about it, how do people generally respond?

"Wimmin" or "wymyn" is how certain feminist positions like "woman" or "women" spelt. The reason being is that it removes the "man" and "men" from the description of people of that gender. This has a lot to do with philosophers like Lacan and his theories of language. Well that's what my politics teacher always tells me..........

Affilliate programs are a waste of time and effort, best as I can tell. They are a crazy way to run your web porn business (or any business, IMO), do not encourage customer loyalty, and are not content based.

My theory is, create good content, treat people well, and they will hang around. We have no ads on our site at all, no popups, consoles, blind links, etc, which are part and parcel with affiliate programs. And they make sites look AWFUL, and make it hard to get around. Why would anyone pay for that?

We may not be making as much money or be as diverse as people who create a dozen sites with stock images, and affiliate them all with each other, and "portal" sites, but I firmly believe that in the long run, we'll do better by doing it "right" - behaving in a way that customers appreciate.

Now, all that being said, I have some very good friends in the biz who do what I do, and we all have pages of links, where we send each other customers. Kinda like, "if you like my site, you might also like these sites". But there's no money changing hands, no tit for tat. The customers decide.

We advertise for models in several ways. Primary contact is by telephone, where we cull out people who are not suitable due to basic requirements by us: age, weight; and basic requirements by them (ie, they don't want to do nude work, they are male). That culls out about 60 out of 100 of phone calls.

We ask the resulting people to come in for an interview. About 30 will show up (many after a lot of follow up calls). The other 30 gave the wrong contact number, even though they set up an appointment (grr), and never show (ie, never intended to show, but did not want to say ont he phone - a pet hate of ours).

We accept around 15 of the 30 people who show up (ie, 50% of show-ups are rejects). The most common reason for us not shooting a model who shows up to an interview is that she is just not... well, pretty enough. Other reasons include, model not having suitable ID, model is travelling, and we don't have time to shoot her before she moves on, we may be inundated with models, and not have time to shoot them all, she might change her mind about it.

Our standards are very much lower than other people who shoot - we're going for a "normal" look, not a "classically beautiful" look, so we are able to shoot more people. This works in our favour, obviously.

There are looks we're definitely after, but we don't go out of our way to find them - we just count ourselves lucky when they show up. As I mentioned above, the "nice girl" look generally sells better - no tan, no piercings, no tatts, not-shaved-bare, etc.

We ask every person we shoot to think about any friends they might have who'd be interested in doing this kind of work. If we shoot them, the referring model gets a cash "referral fee", which is around a third of the average modelling fee (ie, quite a lot).

We don't work with agencies, cos they never have the kind of people we are after, and even if they did, they rarely act int he interest of the model. We go to a grass roots level, asking people directly on the street (etc), posters in strategic places, and newspaper advertisements.

AHunter3, you got some good ideas there, and some of it we are already doing. We're not doing more of it mainly cos the models cannot behave that way convincingly in front of a camera (ie, act).

The _second_ we turn the camera off, of course, they do exactly the kinda stuff we want - mostly, chatting and giggling and larking about like gals do together.

What you describe is naturalistic behaviour, and is very much what we want to capture on film.

It's very frustrating, cos we have a very clear idea of what we want (gals interacting naturally), and they do it all the time, so it should be dead easy to shoot... but they have been conditioned to be very self concious in front of a camera. We deal with amateur models, not pros, so it's par for the course.

Some models are better at not acknowledging the camera than others. Those that are better at it are usually better at other things as well (gennerally all round more intersting models), and we tend to ask them to do girl-girl shoots.

The odd glance we can edit out (tho it does affect the flow). Frequent glances really adversely affect the film.

I agree that it toally affects the style of the shoot: are the models capering for the camera, or really into eachother? They cannot convincingly be both, IMO (tho by editing out the camera acknowledgements, we try to pass them off as being into eachother).

There's a lot to be said for looking at the camera, however. There's a real market for "hey mum, look at what i can do" <action> "see?", but it's a definite style, and tends only to work for shorter peices, not as well for feature length.

It's part joke, part slang. As someone else suggested, feminists use it, cos they reckon a word that describes them that has "men" is it is evil or something. I certainly d not sunscribe to that theory, tho. I just reckon it's fun. Like "prolly" = probably, ya know?

Originally posted by suz_cq So I was wondering whether prospective cast members all know and like each other beforehand, or if they don't, if they can "vet" one another ahead of time and what such a process would be.

Hi SuzCQ

Oh, I getcha. As I said, we don't shoot hetro material (yet), but we have had that happen in a girl-girl shoot (Susie and Melissa, to make storytelling easier). Both models knew each other, and had done a softcore shoot eight months before. It went well, so we asked them to come back recently to do a more involved scene. We had since done a very good GG scene with Susie and one of her old friends, who was not available for more work, so we got Melissa back instead, thinking that as they knew eachother, it'd be better.

Turned out when they got back together that Melissa was now very bi, and very much into the work at hand, bust Susie was more straight than ever, and did not like Mel so much at all - nor how much Mel was getting INTO it all. The result was uninspiring and very expensive.

Both models were good on their own, and with other people, but not with each other. And to add insult to injury, they both lived in very distant cites to where we were producing, so it cost a lot to fly them in, put them up in a hotel, and so on.

There's no way to know the result when you put two people together for something as personal as sex, so it's a risk we take. We have been pretty lucky, really, that was the only shoot I'd class as a failure.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, before we pair models up, we show them pics of each other, and let them meet in a non-threatening environment first. In the case of Susie and Mel, we sent them out for a night on the town with some other people. Shame it did not make a diff.

I've been wondering this for a long time: Why, oh why, do female models never seem to take their shoes off? So many times you see chicks (I'm a chick, I'm allowed to say chicks) totally naked, except for a dangerous-looking pair of stiletto heels, or even socks and tennis shoes ... why? D'they all have ugly feet or what?

I've been wondering this for a long time: Why, oh why, do female models never seem to take their shoes off? So many times you see chicks (I'm a chick, I'm allowed to say chicks) totally naked, except for a dangerous-looking pair of stiletto heels, or even socks and tennis shoes ... why? D'they all have ugly feet or what?

Do you have any feedback that says that men (or gay women, like myself) are interested in the least bit in the HUGE, silly, platform-soled high heels? I mean, there's certainly something to be said for 4-inch heels and a slinky nightie...but jeeze Louise, the hideous 6-inch heels with the 3-inch platform on the bottoms just makes my stomach roil. I'm assuming that the only reason these atrocities of footwear are so prevelant is that there is positive feedback that says that people like to see them, true?

And what about the socks? Two beautiful women, sharing some tender passion, nude but for their white Wal-Mart socks. Is this some sort of fetish too? Because if so, it must be very prevelant, since I see so much of it.

Originally posted by abby Hi PaulYeah
...
My theory is, create good content, treat people well, and they will hang around. We have no ads on our site at all, no popups, consoles, blind links, etc, which are part and parcel with affiliate programs. And they make sites look AWFUL, and make it hard to get around. Why would anyone pay for that?

I was actually thinking of you being on the other end of the affiliate program, where people would place your banners on their sites, sending traffic your way. You wouldn't put a single banner on your site, just earn the rewards of the increased revenue the additional traffic would generate. And of course, share some of that revenue with those who helped you create it. Lots of the biggest sites are doing it, like Danni.com and ScoreLand. I would think that smaller sites with less market share could benefit even more from spreading the word.

What do you tell non-industry people you do for a living? Your family, friends, casual acquaintances, people you meet at parties, etc.? And if you're up-front about it, how do people generally respond?

Hiya

I am select about it, it really depends on the person. I am not one to care much about what other people think of me, so I tend to power ahead and say what I think, often to my own detriment.

However, there are situations when it's prudent to call myself a "photographer", and leave it at that. At the bank, for example, when I am applying for a company credit card. When I approach a real estate agent, looking to rent some studio space. When I buy a car. When I go to a shop to buy photographic gear.

Telling them I shoot porn would work against me, so I tend to keep it to myself. They seem to find out after the fact, however, and that's ok, cos I have already proven to them that I am reliable and responsible (ie, pay rent on time, keep the place clean, etc).

Some of the people who work for me (not models, crew, support staff, etc), are loathe to tell anyone about it, and insist I go to great lengths to ensure their friends do not find out. It bothers me that they are not proud of doing it "right", but that's their choice. And they are coming around, anyway, as they get more involved, they tend to tell more people slowly.

People I meet socially, I tend to tell up front, perhaps beginning with a euphemism initially, to gauge their reaction ("glamour", "nude"). Responses range from "good on you!" (usually from guys), and "you filthy pig!" (when I get that, it's usually from wimmin, but most wimmin seem to be fascinated by it). In the end, most people are ambivalent, but that could be cos they think I am joking.

Again, when I talk to them about it, when they hear the details, they tend to view it as a business (as I do), rather than a sleazy hobby. There is a huge stigma here in .au, that all porn producers are sleazy, and dodgy in business. There are more and more people who are not like that, so basically, the industry is cleaning itself up. Slowly. But there are dodgy operators in any biz.

Originally posted by Anthracite Well, let me ask a question to add to the ones here at the end.

Do you have any feedback that says that men (or gay women, like myself) are interested in the least bit in the HUGE, silly, platform-soled high heels? I mean, there's certainly something to be said for 4-inch heels and a slinky nightie...but jeeze Louise, the hideous 6-inch heels with the 3-inch platform on the bottoms just makes my stomach roil. I'm assuming that the only reason these atrocities of footwear are so prevelant is that there is positive feedback that says that people like to see them, true?

And what about the socks? Two beautiful women, sharing some tender passion, nude but for their white Wal-Mart socks. Is this some sort of fetish too? Because if so, it must be very prevelant, since I see so much of it.

Hiya

Nope, as someone else said, it's there cos it's tradition mainly. I HATE hate hate it, and have never once shot a model in high heels. No big hair, either. And hardly any makeup (none at all these days).

If you want to vote with your feet, and you care, email some of those sites that shoot every model in heels and tell them you reckon it's ugly. Straight out of the 80's, and it has persisted for some reason.

I do agree that heels do makes models calves, thighs and bum look more appealing in a certain way, so I suspect there is some of this going on... but not enough to justify every shoot having them, surely.